I always love to see some clear thinking.
Especially when it comes to storytelling.
A while back I posted about Robin Hood. I’d looked into the character and his legend after being charmed by his latest incarnation from the BBC.
I also reported on the recent stirrings in Hollywood under the direction of Ridley Scott. Well, it’s time to stir up the story again…and I’m liking this batch.
It seems their twist of Russell Crowe playing dual roles (Hood and the Sheriff) is no longer hitting the mark. Scott described it to MTV as an idea so far back, way back when at the time I had this proposed to me, and I read it and thought, 'I don't really know what it does for it, but it's alright.' It is better to simply have the evolution of a character called Robin Hood… I read this as an assertion that the dual roles do not provide a clear thematic nor dramatic purpose. Refreshing to see something isn’t being made simply for the sake of it. And I like his other ideas, too. The figure of the Sheriff of Nottingham is now less important, as the enemy in this version is the French. The filmmakers see it as a larger, more threatening adversary for a big-budget picture. Robin Hood’s beginnings are as a bowman in the army of English King Richard the Lionheart. Sounds like a promising variation to me…
…for as I discovered in the last post about Robin Hood, his tale is one of the most amorphous in the literary world. The very foundation of the story is change. Sure, there are interlocking bits here and there, treasured favorite moments and details…but all of them are subject to who is telling the story. A story which always remains true to its spirit.
Bring on the new Hood, Mr. Scott and Mr. Crowe.
And while we’re on the subject…I’m quite anxious for the new season of the BBC’s Robin Hood. Anyone else see the variation in the season finale? Jeepers!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment